Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: Ant Burr on September 03, 2007, 10:54:09 PM
-
How about a gravity wheel design based on 360 degrees or minimum energy = 0*6?, the frame of a squared hypotenuse!!!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/796423/gravity_wheel_theory/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/796423/gravity_wheel_theory/)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTodzq4hXE (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTodzq4hXE)
Ant
-
G'day all,
This is nothing but a variation on a medieval flap wheel. It doesn't work.
Hans von Lieven
-
It doesn't work.
If below describes the medieval flap or you are a witness to a similar prototype not working, fair enough. But before you condemn the idea so sharply perhaps there is something you should know about the prototype.
In the Video the three arms go to from 1 to about 80 incrementing squares so the true displacement of 111 incremented squares is not shown, there are at least 31 longer incrementing squares and three arms missing for MINIMUM rotation.
When I started I had no idea how long the arm needed to be or if it could be done at all. Through trial I found the more the arms were expanded the more weight was displaced causing it to turn more.
When I placed weights on the end of the arms the arms 'dugg in', rotation was retarded.
The 0 weight with 6 square waves, each 8 thick, is based on the downward sum of a non-linear 6?.
I could go on to how the specified length allows 0 to ride the same frame as the speed of light but won't here. I have been studying the Law of the Squares by JRR Searl since the early 90's, I find them interesting to say the least.
Each of my arms in the wheel weighed a stone+, anyone interested in making a prototype will need to find a suitable material, cut them to size, be willing to drill some 15,984 precision drilled holes etc. On the up-side as a prototype - the holes in the arms do not need 1,998 bearings, just pins. Friction created by the arms opening and closing works against them opening and closing. It is overcome by the proportional weight of the arm and the force of gravity.
The force of gravity and the angled position of each arm on the wheel opens and closes the arm at predetermined points when rotated. With six arms they open - weight is dropped and accumilated to the diameter, closed - rotation gravity and weight gently drops the arm into the closed position. The arms are sited in equal and opposite places - relative to the axle.
Centrifugal force does not keep the arms fixed in the open position, the wheel would need to rotate at speed for that to happen.
If '1' was defined as 0.01 metres and applied to the arm, each arm - when fully open, the arm would measure around 124.32 metres. This is the equivalent of 6,216 square frames measuring 0.01 metres each. Inside the wheel the arm does not fully open it just oscillates a little back and forth.
The weight on the axle and subsequent friction can be reduced by an axle bearing (no axle bearing on protoype).
Nuff said for now...
-
If below describes the medieval flap or you are a witness to a similar prototype not working, fair enough. But before you condemn the idea so sharply perhaps there is something you should know about the prototype.
Gravity wheels do not work. You have no idea how many people spent how many lifetimes trying. You could finetune the wheel for a billion years, fussing with friction, arm lengths and weights, flips, levers, doodads, doohickys, and all that, but it will never work.
An unbalanced wheel will always successfully find the balance point, and once it does, it has no incentive to be unbalanced again. I know what you are going to say: "But at the moment it gets balanced, I will make it unbalanced again." Stop. You can't. You will drive yourself nuts. Whatever gimmick you put in to try to unbalance the wheel from the point of balance will never get started, because the wheel will not allow itself to leave equilibrium.
-
@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !
But most people over here forget, that you have to
store the down-movement in springs, so the potential energy
is not lost for the next cycle.
The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.
The Besslerwheel must have have used this principle and was
successful.
-
You will drive yourself nuts.
Too late...
I believe the largest mass in a solar system limits the vacuum of that whole solar system. The speed of light and other important constants have a local value dependant on the individual solar systems largest mass.
This implies there is a different vacuum size and top speeds between solar systems and galaxies.
Believing the speed of light is not the constant that it appears on Earth, now that drove me nuts...
-
The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.
Great way of putting it.
I'll attach some pictures
Indication how the circuit of 0 is manipulated by the square wave.
Where the arms fall.
And imagine how easy the arm closes because of the angle of centre pins here exampled is a small arm. Rotate at the axle point clockwise and the arm softly closes by gravity.
-
energy to pull up the weight
Great way of putting it.
Opps... There is 0 weight to be maniplulated, just a set of arms that relative to the machines rotation point, is a square wave oscillating.
-
@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !
...
The Besslerwheel...was
successful.
Stefan: You state these things as if you were there in person and saw it...as if you had special certain knowledge of the Bessler Wheel! I'm curious as to what evidence or logic you base your assertions upon.
Not trying to start an argument...I have no opinion as to whether Bessler's wheel worked or not, other than it's lack of replications and my general skepticism. I'm curious though why your opinion is so strong on this one?
Humbugger
-
@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !
But most people over here forget, that you have to
store the down-movement in springs, so the potential energy
is not lost for the next cycle.
The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.
The Besslerwheel must have have used this principle and was
successful.
I do not understand how springs can help. A spring is not an overunity device. Whatever energy is used to compress the spring, the spring will give out less afterwards, after you account for friction, sound, heat, etc.
-
@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !
But most people over here forget, that you have to
store the down-movement in springs, so the potential energy
is not lost for the next cycle.
The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.
The Besslerwheel must have have used this principle and was
successful.
I do not understand how springs can help. A spring is not an overunity device. Whatever energy is used to compress the spring, the spring will give out less afterwards, after you account for friction, sound, heat, etc.
Although your query appears to be addressed to hartiberlin or is it Stefen! My wheel design employs a 2D spring in the form of a square wave.
When the middle pins are removed the square wave can be coiled, no good for the machine but I think it is an interesting piece of data.
Here is a 100 square wave coiled, tightly packed it appears as a circle with pieces of 8 - segments to the spiral, with & in the middle.
-
My wheel design employs a 2D spring in the form of a square wave.
When the middle pins are removed the square wave can be coiled, no good for the machine but I think it is an interesting piece of data.
Here is a 100 square wave coiled, tightly packed it appears as a circle with pieces of 8 - segments to the spiral, with & in the middle.
I will admit I am not sure how the spring goes inside your device. Is the whole thing coiled inside the wheel, as displayed? If so, I do not see how it aids rotation. I did read your description as carefully as I could, and I do not quite get the role of the spring.
Even given my incomplete picture, let me assure you, no one has ever gotten more energy out of a spring than was put in to compress/extend it to begin with, so you cannot come out ahead here. I feel for you and commend you - I can tell you have put a ton of work into this wheel. But you are beating your head against the same wall that Leonardo Da Vinci and countless others did. There is no gravity wheel. Ironically, the perfect spinning wheel will include nothing except itself. Any additional bits designed to gain "free energy" will only slow down rotation. If you have a control wheel of identical design but no flaps, you would see this for yourself. There is a reason bicyle and car wheels do not have shifting tubes of water or sand in them or other such nonsense - they do more harm than good.
If perpetual motion is possible, the answer lies somewhere besides the gravity wheel.
-
I will admit I am not sure how the spring goes inside your device. Is the whole thing coiled inside the wheel, as displayed? If so, I do not see how it aids rotation. I did read your description as carefully as I could, and I do not quite get the role of the spring.
I'll try to explain it differently. A slinky - a long coiled spring that 'walks' downstairs. If you were to place it on a table hold it at each end in a straight line pulling it open a bit. Then if you oscillate the long spring in and out once there so a close bunch of springs together that travel along the slightly expanded spring.
In a long spring that bunch of springs together represents weight displacement.
Looking at the small arm in the post above, like a small spring it does not have this long coiled spring bunching effect.
The reason I illustrated it was to show that when the wheel is rotated clockwise, Gravity and the fixed angle of the arm on the wheel - closes the arm - because the centre pins and the square waves steady incline.
Here is a longer arm, the one fitted in the wheel on the video is 1 square longer.
Even given my incomplete picture, let me assure you, no one has ever gotten more energy out of a spring than was put in to compress/extend it to begin with, so you cannot come out ahead here. I feel for you and commend you - I can tell you have put a ton of work into this wheel. But you are beating your head against the same wall that Leonardo Da Vinci and countless others did. There is no gravity wheel. Ironically, the perfect spinning wheel will include nothing except itself. Any additional bits designed to gain "free energy" will only slow down rotation. If you have a control wheel of identical design but no flaps, you would see this for yourself. There is a reason bicyle and car wheels do not have shifting tubes of water or sand in them or other such nonsense - they do more harm than good.
I have seen Da Vinci's wheel design, although I have not built it, I can see from my experience the design would not work.
If perpetual motion is possible, the answer lies somewhere besides the gravity wheel.
The answer lies within the magic square constant sharing tables. I packed up my brass rods soon after I made the film clip in 2004. I kept 1 arm intact and salvaged the others to make the spiral.
Satisfying my curiosity about the feasibility of a Gravity Wheel, I started analysing the alleged 880 magic 4 squares.
My last post to besslerwheel.com was here http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42580#42580 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42580#42580) on Sep 01, 2007 at 1:05 pm
It may look the same but there is a definite difference in the force I had to apply to go counter clockwise relative to clockwise. In the finished version it may well rotate both ways because of the seen displacement.
I have made a 'Blue Peter' model to satisfy my curiosity, in making this prototype there were no suitable premises, engineering skills, precision machinery and in hindsight I used unsuitable materials (the brass bars I used were too soft).
The point really is... if my prototype can work this well, relatively speaking a badly constructed effort, then it MUST be worth investment of time, skills, and perhaps funding from government to a facility with the resources to build and it will work.
With proper testing, the mechanics of the length to rotation ratio can be applied to magnetic square waves. Anti-gravity can be obtained from the minimum application where minimum e=0*8^2 or 0*4^3.
Even the science fiction series Stargate Atlantis implies a link between a Zero Point Module (ZPM) and a magic 3 square, I've seen a repeat recently on sky TV.
I'm just fed up with sitting on a clip of video since 15 July 2004, 21:20:46 just because it has a number of 666 = 6*111, that could be the futures beast of burden.
Anybody wanna try and patent minimum e=mc^2?
Or patent 360 degrees as meaning 36 squares in a square, within each square there are four more equal squares. On closer examination each individual empty square can be identified as quadrants 1+2+3+4=10 therefore within one square is 10. 10*36=360. The empty 3^2 frame of the smaller four squares also has a total sum of 36, 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8.
I think not!!!
-
Here is a clip as an attempt to show another type of spring within a 6 square, the number sequence.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/804641/snake_6_sq_countdown/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/804641/snake_6_sq_countdown/)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJHCbI_GyI (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJHCbI_GyI)
Next one will be a similar clip showing the normal magic square constant now available here
metacafe
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/806502/linear_and_snake_111/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/806502/linear_and_snake_111/)
or
utube
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpHTOGW61k (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpHTOGW61k)
-
Here is a video of the weight and real dimentions of the prototype arm.
It needs 1 to 111 squares, this has up to 75 squared... I counted.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/813798/gravity_wheel_arm/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/813798/gravity_wheel_arm/)
-
G'day all,
This is nothing but a variation on a medieval flap wheel. It doesn't work.
Hans von Lieven
Here is a two armed version of 30 square.
The Joints move.
There is insufficent weight displacement on this two armed version.
2 arms 1 to 30 square (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/840154/2_arms_1_to_30_square/)
2 arms 1 to 30 1 arm can be seen. (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/840322/1_to_30_one_arm_visible/)
An enclosed 2 arms at 55 incrementing squares should be enough to displace weight to make the wheel perpetually rotate.
-
An enclosed 2 arms at 55 incrementing squares should be enough to displace weight to make the wheel perpetually rotate.
Ok... Here is the theory after playing with the two arms at 1 to 30 yesterday.
Pythagorean Triangle.
(http://viewbug.com/media/mediafiles/2007/09/29/item_3484_pythag.JPG)
The 'alpha' or start number & 'omega' the end number of each square is different.
(http://viewbug.com/media/mediafiles/2007/09/29/item_3485_pythag30.GIF)
Instead of measuring the physical line, measure the energy of that line.
The energy is 30, 30, 30.
Make a 3 arms at 1 to 30 square interlocking them closed round the axle. Insert a spring that allows movement from closed 3 to open 5.
My closed arm from 1 to 30 are 7 thick, measures 22cm
22cm=3
Therefore 5 = 36 2/3cm
Install a spring that allows that oscillation.
Three in one, it looks like an ariel.
-
Update in photos...
-
I am fairly new in this field but, I don't see any control of your machine. I am a blacksmith/armourer by trade of over 22 years and work with allot of moving parts duplicating the movement of the human body. I also know when a project is taking up to much time with little improvement. I would suggest to start with another project with more control, and then look back on this one to see if it is worth going back to.
I am working on a redo of my first project with hammer like arms, and to be truly honest I think I have solved the problem. This is the 4th time redoing it.
If you check half baked you will find one of my rejects, but there is still allot of control in it.
-
I am fairly new in this field but, I don't see any control of your machine. I am a blacksmith/armourer by trade of over 22 years and work with allot of moving parts duplicating the movement of the human body. I also know when a project is taking up to much time with little improvement. I would suggest to start with another project with more control, and then look back on this one to see if it is worth going back to.
I am working on a redo of my first project with hammer like arms, and to be truly honest I think I have solved the problem. This is the 4th time redoing it.
If you check half baked you will find one of my rejects, but there is still allot of control in it.
Thanks I'll check it out later tonight.
I started seriously rebuilding after I noticed the kick on this large 18 square (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yAbJybk-_6Q) arm, this was enmeshed with metal bars 11 thick. The math suggest (a=2,b=a+1 a^2+b^2=c^2=13) it should be two at 13 thick, and not 11 thick. I can no longer spend any money on bars, so I am working with the bars I have.
-
I don't see any control of your machine.
New video...
Prototype needs a spring and perhaps the weights need to be configured differently. I dunno but check out what happens when I close the arm manually.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/853966/gravity_wheel/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/853966/gravity_wheel/)
Let me know what you think...
-
The weights have now been reconfigured.
In the above video what I do a spring or a piece of elastic could do, if the spring/elastic was attached to the weight positioned opposite to the square wave.
When the weight drops the opposite arm closes causing displacement.
-
The weights have now been reconfigured.
In the above video what I do a spring or a piece of elastic could do, if the spring/elastic was attached to the weight positioned opposite to the square wave.
When the weight drops the opposite arm closes causing displacement.
I am not sure I get it. If the spring or elastic is strong enough to pull whatever it is that it is pulling, why would it ever let go? I think you are going to hit equilibrium quickly.
-
Here is the picture rotated with what I am trying to describe.
-
I agree, equilibrium will be reached very soon...less than 1/2 rotation.
Bill
-
Another example...
-
so why not use something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohap0KAo7kE ? And modify it with springs. You would just need to use modifiable tension on the springs.
Jason
-
I have my suspicions about this video. I have seen it before and there is something about the rotational movement that bothers me. It does not appear linear and fluid which I would expect if all components are somewhat matched. Of course, it stopped after a little bit, which does not bother me at all. IF this were real, the stopage could be overcome utilizing better construction methods and materials. I just don't think this is for real. Anyone else's opinion?
Bill
-
Excellent!!!
In it's current form it would have a problem lifting a weight.
When I have attached the elastic, I will find out how much weight my machine will lift. It has 3 @ 1 Kg weights powering it with 3 @ 30 square waves.
I have a cast Celtic skull I got at Wookey Hole in Sommerset, I'll start trying to hoist that.
-
Best of luck to you.
Bill
-
I agree pirate, It seems there may be a small motor running it in the background. And like you I don't trust it either without wrap around footage.
Jason
-
I have my suspicions about this video. I have seen it before and there is something about the rotational movement that bothers me. It does not appear linear and fluid which I would expect if all components are somewhat matched. Of course, it stopped after a little bit, which does not bother me at all. IF this were real, the stopage could be overcome utilizing better construction methods and materials. I just don't think this is for real. Anyone else's opinion?
Bill
Thanks for opening the idea for discussion and the good luck.
If I'd had seen something like that before I would want to know out how it worked it would have saved me a lot of research and development not to mention the planet.
Is it not time for a device like mine to be re-introduced into the consciousness again, it's been erased and encoded for at least 2000 years. I am not talking about this machine, I am talking about the subsequent understanding of energy from mc^2 to c(sum of mass)^2/c.
The nostril nearly dammed us...
-
I agree with your statement, energy (being gravitation and magnetism are poorly understood at this point) or power, volts time amps. Please don't take any of my statements as indignation. I will point out faults if I see them. But I am happy to proven wrong (I would love to be proven wrong). I love to see true builders because I don't believe in old school math or pure thermodynamics. There is always a loop hole. Keep building and keep up the good work.
Jason
-
I agree with your statement, energy (being gravitation and magnetism are poorly understood at this point) or power, volts time amps. Please don't take any of my statements as indignation. I will point out faults if I see them. But I am happy to proven wrong (I would love to be proven wrong). I love to see true builders because I don't believe in old school math or pure thermodynamics. There is always a loop hole. Keep building and keep up the good work.
Jason
Thanks!!!
Have you read Jason and the 'R' go 0's?
It was featured as a buggy in in a Star Trek film.
Sound like base 18 to me, R=18, I,II,III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X,XI,XII,XIII,XIV,XV,XVI,XVII,10.
Ant
-
Decided to put this summary in a video at viewbug.com (http://www.viewbug.com/video/4263).
Taking the weekend off...
-
Update new pictures...